Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders
Date: 2015-02-03 15:41:04
Message-ID: 3586.1422978064@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Additionally I think we should change the default for wal_level to
> hot_standby and max_wal_senders (maybe to 5). That way users can use
> pg_basebackup and setup streaming standbys without having to restart the
> primary. I think that'd be a important step in making setup easier.

I always thought the reason for defaulting to "minimal" was performance.
I'd like to see proof that the impact of wal_level = hot_standby is
negligible before we consider doing this.

The argument that having to change one more GUC is an undue burden while
configuring hot standby seems ridiculous from here. HS is not nearly
"push the EASY button and you're done", and this change wouldn't make
it so.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-02-03 15:44:33 Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-02-03 15:39:01 Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0